P.S. I don't understand why folks are all wee wee'd up about the gun/knife fight thing. The whole point of complaining about this sort of speech is that you're supposed to be worried that folks will take these comments literally.

So, is the right really angry because if they try to knife libs, the libs just might shoot them, rather than try to knife them back--because that's what BHO told them to do when they're in a knife fight w/ an R?

Hmm. Marilyn Manson and bullies got blamed for Columbine. The Discovery Channel hostage taker? Who on the left blamed the right for that? I thought we blamed Al Gore. Who blamed conservatives for Amy Bishop? I don't recall it playing out that way.

He forgets to mention the original work of Lefty wishful-thinking-cum Orwellian-airbrushing: the almost 50-year effort at finding a right-wing conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK. And of RFK too, for that matter.

While it is true that those on the left of the political spectrum use incidents of violence in an attempt to silence their political opposition, I wish that those on the other side would get over wallowing in their victimhood.

It would be really cool if they simply said, "This guy's a nut, period," instead of tastelessly turning this brutal crime into the Passion of the Palin.

Words are powerful and the left controlled the words until the internet and talk radio. It is still possible to talk the big lie, to create and extend the narrative, but it is getting a whole lot harder. Look at the clever mocking twitters that are having fun with the idea of curtailing speech. Imagine the fury it would cause in you if you had the power of words, the power to weave and mend the narrative and then lost it.

"instead of tastelessly turning this brutal crime into the Passion of the Palin."

If they did that there'd be nothing in it for the left. Watching cons rally behind Palin (and others) is, I would assume, the whole point. Can't you hear the libs chuckling in their salons and bistros? "Ha ha look at the silly cons scrambling about."

Youngblood: Are you implying that the right dragged Palin into this so that they could make her into the victim? "instead of tastelessly turning this brutal crime into the Passion of the Palin." Are you nuts? Who do you think accused Palin of being the evil genius behind these horrors? Republicans? How about deciding that liberals are malicious paranoids who believe that their every failure is some one else's fault? How about a "conversation" about the unhinged left and their media?

Actually edutcher, it is the right who always try to distance themselves from the truth, in the name of truth. They are now trying to distance themselves from their violent, "Second Amendment" rhetoric and say, " hey, i was not the one talking the violent hate speak. It was the libs." That's crap and you know it. Like most other righties, you are deny, deny, deny.Oh chicklit, there is no corresponding list from the left concerning the right because they are attributing all of those incidents on the left and not (as usual) taking any sort of responsibility for their own actions.

You see, I just think the guy is nuts, I don't feel the need to cast blame on anyone, this is the job of the conservative right.vicki

I'm a Conservative too, and I'm sick and fucking tired of being associated with people who claim to piss their pants when Obama references The Untouchables.

It wouldn't have been that hard in this case to take the high road. Those on the Right could have pointed out that Loughner is a nut, that there's no evidence that he was influenced by Sarah Palin (or any other personality on the Right), and that the Left is shamelessly taking advantage of a massacre in an attempt to silence its political opponents.

But no. The Right had to take the bait. Now they're hooked, playing the same bullshit game as the Left. "You're hateful!" "No, you're hateful!" "No, you are."

Lets go back in time to althouse's own site where she mentioned this very topic.Note, Paul Krugman (He who suggested libs should burn Joe Lieberman in effigy over his betrayal of the dems in running as an independent) blamed "right wing ideology". THough, considering the guy hates Jews I'd blame left wing ideology, and/or Cedarford.

Words are powerful and the left controlled the words until the internet and talk radio. It is still possible to talk the big lie, to create and extend the narrative, but it is getting a whole lot harder.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, winner!

As explained here:he Left’s sudden talk about incendiary political rhetoric in the wake of the Arizona shooting isn’t really about political rhetoric at all. It’s about the real-world failure of leftist policies everywhere—the bankrupting of nations and states by greedy unions and unfundable social programs, the destruction of inner cities by identity politics, and the appeasement of Muslim extremists in the face of worldwide jihad, not to mention the frequently fatal effects of delirious environmentalism. Europe is in debt and on fire. American citizens are in political revolt. Even the most left-wing president ever is making desperate overtures to his right.

But all that might be tolerable to leftists if they weren’t starting to lose control of the one weapon in which they have the most faith: the narrative. The narrative is what leftists believe in instead of the truth. If they can blame George W. Bush for the economic crisis, if they can make Sarah Palin out to be an idiot, if they can call the Tea Party racist until you think it must be true, they might yet retain power in spite of the international disgrace of their ideas. And though they still mostly dominate the narrative on the three broadcast networks, most cable stations, most newspapers, and much of Hollywood, nonetheless Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, and the Wall Street Journal have begun to respond in ways they can’t ignore.

A majority of the people in this country identify more with the Tea Party movement than with the Democrat Party today, with liberalism.

Fact check time for Rush Windbaugh, or rather call bullsh*t on Rush time. Where's the cite? There isn't even data from 2010 that could prove that. Demos still have substantially more people than GOP (and TP) in the big states (like CA and NY). And the TP is not the GOP. Just a small part. So he's making shit up as usual-- or maybe just talking to Texass. "Dese people..." Nearly ...Fuhrer like

No jal, i was awake. I saw the way both Fox and MSNBC rushed to place blame on the other side. Sick sick sick. If the righties were totally blameless, they should have taken the high road. But they didn't, they slung mud and assigned blame along wit the left. Even worse, they tried to distance themselves from their violent rhetoric and tap down their hate speak.

I would have admired them more if they had been honest. But that doesn't seem to be the calling card for either extreme.

As much as those on the Right criticize the culture of victimhood on the Left, they love painting themselves as helpless oppressed victims kicked hither and yon by the liberal fascist jackboot.

Michael,

I'm a Conservative too, and I'm sick and fucking tired of being associated with people who claim to piss their pants when Obama references The Untouchables.

It wouldn't have been that hard in this case to take the high road.

No, that's what the RINOs did forever and the result was the Left controlled the debate. The only way for the truth to come out is for someone to get up and actually say, "That's a lie. Here's the truth of it. Oh, and by the way, let's keep in mind the real purveyors here". The Bushes, pere et fils, tried the high road and the lies stacked up real fast.

PS From quote 1, he doesn't sound like a Conservative.

victoria said...

Actually edutcher, it is the right who always try to distance themselves from the truth, in the name of truth.

Whatever she said.

This from the woman who throws up a little in her mouth every time the subject of Sarah Palin arises.

Who was saying that Columbine was a crime committed by conservatives? You had some gun control people (like Michael Moore) using it as an argument in favor of gun control (one I don't agree with, personally), but where were the examples of people saying the shooters there were conservatives? Let's see some links to support that. The same can be said for other incidents on that list, like the Fort Hood attack. Who was claiming that was done by people on the right?

And the biggest one on that list - Oklahoma City - was done by a right-wing extremist. Not someone with any ties to mainstream conservatism, that's for sure, but people who get inspired by the Turner Diaries aren't generally from the left.

It's also interesting to note that Rush isn't mentioning the killing of abortion provider George Tiller, and he's also not mentioning the guy who shot up the Unitarian church in Knoxville, in order to target liberals. (You can read his manifesto here.) Again, the guys who performed those crimes weren't mainstream conservatives in any sense of the word, but they were on the fringes of the right, and it's the lunatic fringe that one must be concerned about.

The left has stepped in it so bad on this one. That's one of the problems with reacting to everything with your emotions first, and sometimes only. It just makes a wingnut feel good about the future in so many ways. Keep it up you fools...please keep it up. You can't help it anyway, so just let it out.

He wasn't so leftist a few weeks ago when he agreed to extend BushhCo tax cuts. Or funding Afghan. Or when agreeing to the bailout. He's hardly any more left than Hillary. "

No, he was a leftist then and he's the same leftist now. Then, it was brilliant pragmatism - that is, because he had his ass handed to him in the election, he had to move right. If not, no way he has a chance in 2012. Had democrats won the election, no way we'd see the extension of tax rates, or the more 'conciliatory' tone.

Either way, while the story isn't over yet, it's looking more and more like the guy was a general nutjob, without any coherent ideology and perhaps with a weird personal grudge against Giffords. Too bad for people on either side who were quick to start that claiming Loughner was acting for the other side.

And twenty bucks says Loughner never even read half the books on the favorite books list that is being mentioned everywhere.

This weekend's shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the deaths and injuries of many others in the horrific event in Tucson, Arizona have shocked our nation. We here at UC Berkeley offer our sincere condolences to everyone who has been personally affected by this tragedy.

Such a brutal and violent attack on an individual who has devoted herself to public service is deeply regrettable. It calls upon us as an academic community to stop and ponder the climate in which such an act can be contemplated, even by a mind that is profoundly disturbed. A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy. I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons. This same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the Dream Act by our legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country.

On our own campus, and throughout all the campuses of the University of California, we must continue to work toward a climate of equity and inclusion for all. We must be vigilant to condemn hate speech and acts of vandalism on our campuses by those wanting to promote enmity. We must work to support dialogue about our differences and eschew expressions of demonization of others, including virulent attacks on Israel, anti-Muslim graffiti, racism towards African-Americans, Chicano/Latinos and other underrepresented minority groups, and homophobic acts. Continuing to support our principles of community will ensure a better and safer campus. We must do this now so that our students, as future leaders of this great country, will continue to set the standard for a better and safer nation.

Youngblood wrote:It would be really cool if they simply said, "This guy's a nut, period," instead of tastelessly turning this brutal crime into the Passion of the Palin.

They're not turning it into a passion of the Palin. They are rebutting blood libels. And note, they are not saying that in fact it was liberal ideology that caused this shooting. What they are saying is that libs are full of shit. Big difference.

I'll note Youngblood, that in the 2009 link I refrenced from Althouse about the Holocaust museum that Krugman blamed on rightwing ideology, and if you look in the discussion there you find Alpha Liberal saying "yet another right wing killing". Beuase that really is the point isnt it. You want republicans to take an endless high road, yet at every turn you have the alpha liberals of hte world blaming republicans for violence that is ultimately not attributable to them. And how many times will he continue with the libel? Endlessly. Yet to you, even rebutting the outlandish smear, is the equivalent of making the smear.

That's right jaybird--maybe like google the ebonics Govt class for starters. The electoral college ring a bell? CA with 36 mil.people + is like 10% more Demo (or more) than GOP/TP. NY's close to that. So who cares that Nevada with what 5 mil or so is nearly even.

Once you sum up the estimates of entire country (which is not really official data--ie census) yll discover Fat man Windbaugh was lying his ass off, or maybe off his meds and mistaking Kentucky for the US.

In these troubling, volatile times we should move on from nasty Newspeak to sanctimonious Slimspeak. For any civil discourse only four words are necessary; 'duh?', 'huh?', 'yay!',and 'yikes!' Professors should be allowed an occasional 'hmm'. Thusly, we'd surcome the nattering nabobs of nuttiness, and easily refudiate rancorous rumors.Meanwhile, from the political playground:When Palin removed her campaign site and issued statements along the line of 'we never intended, we never meant...', while media replayed snippets of Giffords' warning to Palin that inflammatory speech and imagery have consequences, we witnessed Palin's Chappaquiddick moment. She may regain and expand influence, but she'll never be President. And Sunday's breeze through Capitol's stale corridors was the collective bipartisan sigh of relief.Giffords' YouTube channel showed that she only subscribed to two channels, former Congressman Ike Skelton's – and Jared Lee Loughner's. The intellectually curious crossing the intellectually challenged. This flaw on the prevailing narrative has been fixed.

"CA with 36 mil.people + is like 10% more Demo (or more) than GOP/TP. NY's close to that."

In addition, these 2 states are among the biggest failures, 1 and 2 respectively, in terms of debt and awful business climate. Congratulations. The dems have been in control in these 2 shining examples for years! Amazing, the independent thinking behind all that social largesse. The formula? Overpromise, underdeliver, point fingers.

The democrats, after losing big in the 2010 election, are desperate for an issue. Please let Loughner be a conservative! He must be a conservative who listens to Rush Limbaugh and reads the campaign blog of one Sarah Palin. Please!

"You may piss the bed when Obama references The Untouchables, but I don't."Jesus Christ. What a freaking dumbass. Not a single person is pissing the bed about this. It is nothing more than a example of the hypocrisy of those blowing a gasket about Palin. How is this so hard for you to understand? Ann needs to create a Moby tag for all of these commentators.

Why couldn't you both have gone to Auburn? That way Oregon would win, similar to what happened last year. You'd be stuck in the ice, but I'm sure you know how to drive. You'd have the barner streets to yourselves.

One thing that all the people calling for moderation of speech so as not to incite crazy people clearly demonstrate is their profound lack of understanding of what craziness is. Having worked in a mental health center for 5 years where some of patients were paranoid schizophrenics and paranoid personalities, of which at least one had committed murder (his mother), I can tell you it doesn't take any rhetoric for these people to get incited.

Where do they get the idea others can read their minds? That multitudes of other people are watching them? That the government is tracking them where ever they go? And the endless stream of other delusional thoughts? Political rhetoric has nothing to do with it. Crazy people are CRAZY!

To promote the idea that we can stop crazy people from doing crazy things by watching our language in political debate is crazy in itself. And stupid.

"Remember that gu who stabbed a Muslim cabbie in New York and everyone tried to blame Glenn Beck but the stabber turned out to be some total weenielib?"

Jared Lee Laughner favorited flag-burning videos. He read Marx. Listed Mein Kampf as one of his favorite works of literature - along with The Communist Manifesto.

In broad daylight he murdered a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush and shot - at point blank range in the head - a pro-gun former lifelong Republican lawmaker who had just voted against Nancy Pelosi for Democrat leader.

Jared Lee Laughner had an ideology.

He was a committed liberal.

Willing to kill 9-year-old children to advance the cause of liberalism.

J: Amigo!! Anti-Semetic nightmare man!! Back at work today and alreay pissed off? Working for someone dumber than you? It's only Monday, dude, and the Jews and conservatives are pulling way way ahead. My biggest nightmare. Ha.

How do folks end up in the looney bin (sorry, I don't know the euphemism; Mental Health Detention Facility?)

Could this guy have been locked up, w/o having hurt anyone, first? Would his outbursts in school be enough?

Assuming these folks do go to the looney bin (by choice or not), who pays for this sort of detention? What if the parents are tapped? Does the gov get stuck w/ the (presumably substantial) bill? Does the tab keep running for as long as these folks live?

I'm guessing that the states are too broke to pay for this stuff. And, I'd assume many families can't handle the costs themselves. Maybe health insurance pays this stuff?

Could it be that the shooter a complete fucking lunatic whose ideas are utterly indiscernable? Could it that he’s a full-blown schizophrenic who’s no more responsible for his actions than is a newborn infant? And maybe the people closest to him — his family, his former school, local law enforcement — were wildly irresponsible in not seeing him confined and treated? That he was given to causing disturbances that involved security personnel and resulted in numerous reports, and no actions? That perhaps Mr. Loughner is a textbook example of Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity, and though he may never see the inside of a penitentiary, will surely spend the rest of his sad life confined in a State psychiatric hospital, which is even worse?

These speculations in no way absolve Sara Palin of ultimate responsibility, I should point out. I mean, what would be the point in that?

bagoh20: The left has stepped in it so bad on this one. That's one of the problems with reacting to everything with your emotions first, and sometimes only. It just makes a wingnut feel good about the future in so many ways. Keep it up you fools...please keep it up. You can't help it anyway, so just let it out.

Ha.

I'd like to think that hallucinating quotidian martial metaphors into incitements to violence really was rock bottom for the poor 'bats derangement - and the healing could begin! But I dunno. Somehow I think there just gonna keep bringin' on the crazy. Because, as you say, they just can't help themselves.

J: You antisemitic piece of dung, how are you? On or off the meds? Early in the week for a mental crisis but already your posts are, shall we say, a bit off. Hipster, dude, antisemitic striver, its tough keeping up isn't it. I recommend not eating the roaches but that's just me.

Penn Jillette, a man known for his ability to call bullshit, tweeted earlier today:

Fuck Civility. Hyperbole, passion, and metaphor are beautiful parts of rhetoric. Marketplace of ideas can not be toned down for the insane.

Best thing I've read in 3 days on the matter of "civility."

The left abandoned "civility" decades ago, and have been ratcheting it up ever since. At some point, the high road runs out, and that's where I am.

Fuck civility! This is a fight, and I intend to fight it. Fuck you, language police! If I want to target a political campaign in a war of ideas, then I will fire at will and blow my enemy out of the water. I will run them through with lances and slice them with swords. I will kick ass, take names and sever heads until I walk over their bodies to reach for the flag of political victory. I will use every bit of warlike and combative language I damn well please, and I will call bullshit nose to nose with you when I see it. I will be so fucking insensitive and hurtful to your feelings that you'll curl up like the whiny little bitches you are.

Seriously. You libs can shove it right back up your asses where it came from. I'm not giving an inch, because I've had to fight through a decade of your political abuse to get this far. I'm gonna keep right on going, and if that means going straight though you, that's what I'll do. Hell, I'll go through you so fast, I'll skullfuck ya for free.

I will drive through you like the Khan's hordes, guiding my horse with my legs and shooting arrow after arrow into bullseye after bullseye. I will leave like Crazy Horse left Custer; spiked with arrows and unmanned.

I'm gonna grab my AK, load a bunch of clips, slap one in, lock 'n' load and take you and your scum sonsabitches down. You will lose. You will cry. Your women will know you're weak and your men will be fucking sheep for solace.

I'm seriously starting to get a "Duke Lacrosse" sense from all of this (although there was a real crime this time).

I mean the media is shamelessly making up facts and reporting any and every rumor they hear in order to slime a group they don't like. Instead of reporting the facts they are pushing a narrative.

Meanwhile the narrative becomes more and more removed from reality as the evidence piling up directly contradicts the media's claims.

At the same time a public servant (Dupnik) is running around playing media whore. He's making all sorts of outrageous statements with no evidence and doing so, seemingly, for political gain (although if reports are true it might be just to cover up gross incompetence).

If this continues to follow the Duke model then Althouse is probably correct that this will backfire on the left (especially Dupnik who is quickly becoming the face of the unhinged people using this tragedy). Although, as in the Duke case, the media personalities are not likely to suffer any serious harm to their careers.

As it should be, from the POV of a libertarian minded con, or a civil liberties minded lib. Presumably, it shouldn't be easy for the gov (or others) to lock up an adult against their will. Right?

No. I didn't say that. It should be a pain in the ass. In fact, in some cases, it should be harder. For instance, it is not at all unusual for a someone, in the throws of an ugly divorce, to commit the spouse out of malignity or for a nasty edge in a custody fight. A signature can get the bitch (or bastard) locked a way for 72 hours for "evaluation."

However, it's easier, from a law enforcement point of view, to let an obvious lunatic out of the clink and back into school if you know he has some negligent parents to go home to. From a public safety point of view, it's Russian roulette.

1jpb - Psychiatrists can temporarily commit someone who is a danger to himself or others. There are state psychiatric hospitals available in most large cities. Our mental health center used a psych ward at the University of Tennessee hospital.

Payment is done by Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, the patient or patient's family depending on the patient's circumstances.

"This is why I suspect that jackass sheriff is playing desperation offense."

That sheriff - and the county prosecutor - should have had the fucking punk in jail already for his multiple drug offenses and death threats.

Instead, they let him out to kill with nothing but a slap on the wrist.

Sherriff Dupenik has blood on his hands and I certainly hope that the people of Pima County will do the right thing and retire this doddering old fuck before more 9-year-old girls have to die owing to his ineptness as a law enforcement officer.

Crazy people are everyday stuff. Crazy guys need serious meds to deal with their emotional hangups. But the trap for the SlanderMachine Dems here is that Loughner is not just another crazy man. He is a Charles Manson type. No one can be blamed for those guys except the presence of an evil power. And everybody sees now that is what happened in Tuscon. It is also of interest that the Charles Manson types have talents that are seen as valuable to others. But in the end no one can controls them.

I do think in the end that one of the big stories that will arise from this is the Pima County Sheriff's department failing to follow up on repeated warnings and complaints about Jared Loughner, because, apparently, his mother worked for the county, and then the Sheriff starting off this debate as to whether Sarah Palin was responsible for Loughner's actions.

In retrospect, it sure looks like the Sheriff was trying to divert attention from his own role in the shootings. After all, who really has more culpability here? The politician who put cross-hairs (according to Palin's people, of surveying equipment) over the congressional district (but not over a picture of the candidate herself)? Or the head of the law enforcement agency who failed to follow up on apparently numerous indications that Loughner was a danger to society?

The suggestion that I offered, which you didn't quote, was for people on the Right to stand up and say, "No, this is a shameless and cynical lie intended to shame us into silence."

Instead of doing that, the Right has decided to shamelessly and cynically lie to shame their opposition into silence.

You may piss the bed when Obama references The Untouchables, but I don't.

I have yet to hear of the Right, except maybe Florida (who is more giving the Left ammo with her invective than lying), lie about this. All the lies are coming from the Left, including mobies like Youngblood.

somefeller said...

You may piss the bed when Obama references The Untouchables, but I don't.

Actually, edutcher pisses the bed for lots of reasons, commentary from President Obama being only one.

Though the Obama reference was a dumb one and unpresidential. Not to mention not very convincing, even to many of his allies.

Some phony folksy and the rest of the Lefties here, having had their little blood libel explode in their faces with the exposure who really wallows in the imagery of violence, now feel obliged to backtrack from The Zero's Alinskyite rhetoric of 2 years ago. Uncle Saul has been their Bible for 40 years. It must be devastating to them to know their game is finally over.

BTW, my continence is just fine, but, as we all know, Lefties always project.

"The whole point of complaining about this sort of speech is that you're supposed to be worried that folks will take these comments literally."

Ummm, no, I don't think so. It seems as though the left complains about this sort of speech because they apparently think it will be taken literally, or at least that is the thesis they want to advance.

The right, on the other hand, thinks this thesis is silly, that such speech has no such effect. Additionally, the right thinks the left are a bunch of great big hypocritical crybabies for indulging in the very thing they are allegedly so horrified by.

victoria: No jal, i was awake. I saw the way both Fox and MSNBC rushed to place blame on the other side

Examples of FOX doing so? I heard them all day. FOX NEVER tried to place blame on the other side. In fact, most of their commentary was how the Left had a different standard ("wait and see before mouthing off") whenever the bomber/shooter is muslim.

So put up or shut up. Provide examples that FOX was doing what the Left was. Back it up with more than just false assertion and wishful thinking

It bums me out a little bit when all your lists leave off Schwenkler, the Denver activist who vandalized the Denver DNC headquarters under a poorly executed (is that word allowed in polite company?) false flag operation. The right was blamed for that, no need to apologize, it's an understandable mistake given how violent they're known to be.

I wonder if such blind dedication could help explain why the Rs are always fooling you folks? Blabbity blah, blabbity blah [continued non sequitur]

Ya know, your comment had no logical connection to Paco's. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Whoosh. Built too low to catch the high ones.

Seriously, do you even understand natural language? Words mean things. Words strung together in certain ways mean certain things, not other things, and everyone except for the few people with very rare mutations in genes controlling grammar are supposed to be able to logically process the meaning in clear, straightforward language like that just used by Paco.

But I wonder. Sometimes I really bleedin' wonder. And I'm startin' to wonder if the real problem isn't partisan disingenuousness or dickheadedness but a real physical problem with language that's manifested in the weird, logically out-of-phase responses and the pathological literal-mindedness infesting the land.

And that's why people freak on the metaphors. Because they don't freakin' understand them. It's a mystery to them. Because what was once normal non-literal human language is a lost skill with substantial numbers of people, and the simple abstractions that have been the possession of Homo probably since Homo was Homo, now come at them like weird alien gibberish, which frustrates and frightens them. Og hear strange talk. Og hear war talk. Og freak and start screeching and hooting and banging pans.

The Congresswomen recently read the 1st Amendment during the reading of the Constitution in the House, so does anyone else think it is shameful to use her shooting as an excuse to diminish that same 1st Amendment that she clearly loved?

Really, garage? Other than Florida (who I suspect is a moby, in any case a troll), who are "thee most fucking retarded people on earth"-- according to you, conservatives-- commenting in this & related threads? And what's so "fucking retarded" about the views they're expressing here? This is not a rhetorical question: I'd like to know.

"The episode led to soul-searching among news organizations about the use of unattributed or anonymously sourced information. Jewell's name became shorthand for a person accused of wrongdoing in the media based on scanty information."

The average journalist is a mental midget who only seeks sound bites, easy explanations, and superficial analysis. Watch your local news, watch the national news, watch MSNBC, CNN, FOX and any other news source.

Do these people ever say anything profound, insightful or other than the most obvious and superficial. No. My teenage kids and their teenage friends have more insight into events than these air heads.

Mesquito wrote:Anyone else find it creepy that new standard what me may and may not say is: How will it affect the behavior of an abviously crazy person who may or may not hear it?

I would find it creepy if in fact it were real. However, this is only being used because libs think they can get some traction out of it, as they do with any tragedy that involves someone being killed. That's their modus operandi.But let the discusssion turn to Hollywood and it's promoting rampant violence and sex, and let someone suggest that Hollywood is responsible for sexualizing children and turning them into desensitized vioent people and you'll get the argument that it's just a movie and Hollywood can't be responsible for the actions of a crazy person who happened to watch said movie. You have to remember, the libs of the world argue nothing based on actual conviction or a moral center. It's all about expediency. So todays argument about how people should be responsible for the words that might incite crazies will tomorrow be the exact opposite argument, and then will be the same argument and then the opposite.

But let the discusssion turn to Hollywood and it's promoting rampant violence and sex, and let someone suggest that Hollywood is responsible for sexualizing children and turning them into desensitized vioent people and you'll get the argument that it's just a movie and Hollywood can't be responsible for the actions of a crazy person who happened to watch said movie.

The difference being that, when they argue that they aren't turning kids into desensitized violent people, they're right.

Palin's Chappaquiddick moment occurred because she hastily removed an ordinary, run of the mill website, as if there was something wrong with it, then protested her innocence in ways that sounded guilty. Liberal media gleefully contrasted this with Giffords' criticism.

Palin, no novice in public life, should know that if you act and sound halfway guilty, your opponents will paint you guilty, and make it stick, facts notwithstanding. She appears to have but a tenuous grasp on national politics, Washington DC style; that's her excuse, but also her verdict. If she still harbors ambitions of high offices, Chicago is an excellent grooming place.

The difference being that, when they argue that they aren't turning kids into desensitized violent people, they're right.

Can you prove that?

The level of violence, blood, gore, cruelty, sadism and all that in movies is far beyond what it was when I was growing up. If violence is no worse now than it was then (1950s and 19060s) then why should we be concerned about the shootings in Tuscon other than it is another tragic but passing incident.

This is actulaly right out of the Manchurian candidate (the original, not the crappy remake with Denzel). Only instead of the manchurian candidate being an agent of the chinese, he is instead an agent of the tea partiers. And 99% of the time he's your avergage pot smoking leftist truther who likes dreaming about unicorns. But the Tea Partiers have brain washed him to be an assassin. He just needs to know who the targets are. Which is where the cross hairs come in. Palin is laying out the targets that must be snuffed out. And the trigger is when Paln says "You betcha!". That sends the assassins out to murder their targets, not even realizing that they are in fact killers.Its very scary indeed.

Since the mid-90s, when Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers hit the theaters and id software pioneered graphically violent first-person shooter videogames, the juvenile violent crime rate has fallen by 45%.

2004 had the lowest rate of juvenile violent crime since we started tracking it after WW2. Despite being steeped in sex and violence from every part of their culture, today's teenagers are less violent than both their parents and their grandparents.

If violence is no worse now than it was then (1950s and 19060s) then why should we be concerned about the shootings in Tuscon

I'm not.

It is funny, though, that you cite the 1950s and 1960s as some sort of halcyon bygone era. The juvenile crime rate was a source of constant concern throughout the 1950s and peaked in 1968, with juveniles responsible for 22% of violent crimes and 55% (yes, the majority) of serious property crimes.

A moby is someone on the Left who pretends to be a Right-wing extremist for the purpose of spreading rumors or adopting extremist positions to make the others engaged in discussion look bad.

I'm basically a Goldwater Conservative -- I favor small government, I'm fairly libertarian on social issues, and I'm hawkish on national defense. If I were adopting an extremist position to discredit the others here, I'd be doing a pretty shitty job of it.

I'm not spreading rumors or anything, either. I'm just sick of the fairly recent tendency of other conservatives to play the cynical bullshit victim game. That's Gramsci's game -- the Left's game. It's Marxist class war by other means.

I reject that. I think that it's sufficient to:

1.) Point out that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Loughner was influenced in any way by Sarah Palin or the Right more generally, and attempts to pin his crime on them is shameless exploitation of a genuine tragedy.

2.) Point out that electoral politics lends itself to "violent" or "militant" metaphors, and they're no big deal when they come from either side. Because they're fucking metaphors.

Youngblood is pushing the same line as PB&J and some phony folksy, and then says Instead of doing that, the Right has decided to shamelessly and cynically lie to shame their opposition into silence..

As he says, "A moby is someone on the Left who pretends to be a Right-wing extremist for the purpose of spreading rumors or adopting extremist positions to make the others engaged in discussion look bad.".

Anyone can call themselves a "Goldwater Conservative". Actually acting like one is a different story.

I didn't ask you to prove the crime rate had fallen, but to prove when Hollywood argues that they aren't turning kids into desensitized violent people, they're right. There may be a host of other reasons the juvenile crime rate went down.

Please point to any conservative at Althouse (other than Florida) or in the MSM at large, who has done anything other than (in your own exact words) "point out that"

(1) "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Loughner was influenced in any way by Sarah Palin or the Right more generally"

(2) "attempts to pin his crime on them is shameless exploitation of a genuine tragedy"

(3) "electoral politics lends itself to 'violent' or 'militant' metaphors, and they're no big deal when they come from either side. Because they're fucking metaphors."

I presume, following your own argument, that you would not accuse a conservative merely expressing point (2)-- that "attempts to pin his crime on them is shameless exploitation of a genuine tragedy"-- to be "play[ing] the cynical bullshit victim game." At least, not without falling prey to a blatant contradiction. I mean, call me crazy, but having one's conscientiously held political views (say, on a certain piece of legislation) expressly blamed for *mass murder* by the MSM-- not marginal outlets, but CNN & the NYT (& chancellors of major universities) etc.-- without any grounds whatsoever (and indeed plentiful evidence to the contrary), seems to me to justify some righteous indignation. A righteous indignation that I presume you would not not reduce (as 1jpb would) to "crybaby sensitivities."

youngblood: For those who missed the memo (Edutcher and Jeff, maybe some others):

[...]

...I'm just sick of the fairly recent tendency of other conservatives to play the cynical bullshit victim game[...]

I reject that. I think that it's sufficient to:[...]

[repeat repeat repeat]

This shit ain't hard.

While saying the same thing over and over is an excellent method for persuading others of your wisdom and insight, sometimes with the unusually obtuse and recalcitrant it's necessary to bring out the big guns. I'd recommend reposting your comment in all caps. I'm sure that'll set 'em all nodding and murmuring.

Back to the shooting outrage. This sheriff Dupnik, or Dumbnut, or whatever his name is, the worse thing about his initial blame game nonsense, makes me wonder, how many people has he put in jail, because he had no evidence, but he just had a thought someone was guilty?

Allen: Back to the shooting outrage. This sheriff Dupnik, or Dumbnut, or whatever his name is, the worse thing about his initial blame game nonsense, makes me wonder, how many people has he put in jail, because he had no evidence, but he just had a thought someone was guilty?

From what I've been reading, Dupnik dropped the ball on the shooter - several opportunities to flag this guy as mental and ban him from buying firearms and ammo.

Its the classic deflection we saw from Nagin and Blanco during Katrina.

Hoosier Daddy wrote:Do your buddies know you think they're retarded or were you just lying before?

to tie this into another thread, Garage is like the lonely kid with autism that was befriended by the cool kid who Kathy Gifford wrote a song about (and was ragged on by Howard Stern for). Garage is that autistic kid. ANd the conservatives who are his friends feel sorry for him. Kathy should write a song about it.